Heretics - Reverend Carlton Pearson

For believers in religion, the 'straight and narrow' is the road to heaven. It is simply a means to an end. When you (Ringo)say 'straight and narrow' it sounds like the road is the end in itself, and heaven is the 'carrot' that is held out to people to trick them onto the road. It is a subtle difference, maybe. But when you think of the 'straight and narrow' road being the end in itself, it gives rise to all sorts of questions. Is religion (God, heaven, hell) all a trick created by man to trick people into behaving? If so, what is the aim in getting people to behave? What is the 'straight and narrow'? Is it a set of rules and laws that benefit us and or a human leader?I think this is an important difference when discussing hell. On the one hand, people are just afraid of going to hell. On the other hand, people are afraid of not going to heaven. Going to heaven is not just a place in some realm, it can also be a state of union with God. The opposite extreme is fear of eternal seperation from God, which is thought to be 'hell' in itself. The 'straight and narrow road' in this case, is the 'carrot.

There is a thread here somewhere with a long prologue which puts out a pretty possible picture of the evolution of religion. I can find the topic if need be, but for now I will paraphrase; At one time man feared what he did not know. He ascribed all things mysterious to a divine force or deity, including those which were harmful to him such as disease and natural disaster. After a time mankind felt sure that to prevent evil and procure good, they must appease their chosen deities. This appeasement came in varying forms, including cannibalism and human sacrifice. These acts of 'worship', whatever they may be, are what Ringo is describing as the 'straight and narrow', but you can see that in some cases they neither benefit a flock or a shepherd, as with cannibalism. I think his theory is putting the cart before the horse in some aspect; he is looking at religions which have shown reason, in that appeasing God much of the time benefits society as well. Many rules, and many religions, accomplish no practical or beneficial purpose at all.

I do not doubt that this seems to make sense to you. I am not sure if you can provide an example of another situation where making God less than omnipotent would make the story easier for you to swallow, but in the example you just gave you have drawn the wrong conclusion as I see it. You seem to believe that God can not wipe out sin. It would be good to think about what sin really is. When you think about it, sin proves in a way that God IS omnipotent. God is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, completely perfect. I will not argue from any side, but even if God were created by man, He has come to be viewed by man as all powerful, all wise etc. That is what makes Him God. Now assuming that our idea of perfection has been called 'God' then we can also believe that there can only be one way to do something perfectly. When we do something less-than-perfect it is sin. It is going against God. We can not be sure of what exactly is the perfect way to do things, but we have come up with a list of some obvious imperfections, called the commandments. Religions have added other things, based on what they feel would be the perfect thing to do, and these things (how we pray to God, what we do at church, etc.) are constantly debated. If there is only one correct answer to a problem, all other answers are less than perfect. In religion the other answers are called sins. It would seem from this that we do think of God as perfect, or we would not expect a correct answer from HIm. It also seems obvious that God can not wipe out sin. As long as He exists perfectly, and we have free-will, we will have the ability to do something imperfectly. He could possibly wipe out free-will, yes. He could force us all to know the truth and be perfect, but I would not hold my breath. In the meantime, just know that God did not creat sin, anymore than a mathmetician created wrong answers to multiplication. We can not ask any teacher to wipe out poor students. If we were always going to be perfect, we would have to all be gods.

God gave Adam and Eve a choice. He is timeless and sees into the future as if it were present; of course He knew what they would choose. Does this mean he should have stopped the world and went back to make humans without choice? Of course not. His plan is timeless, unchangeable, and perfect. For Adam and Eve, in a finite world, the command was necessary, so that a choice could be made. It is not show, but a protection for the creatures who could choose to follow the command. Adam and Eve simply believed that they could hide from God. It is this futile and pitiful belief that gives emphasis to their shame, and their realization after sinning that God's way was perfect. This is again choice. Angels have choice. Though more perfect than we are, they are still not capable of complete understanding of God's plan. In the above, I have tried to show you that these stories make sense even with an almighty God.To your credit, you have thought this out much more deeply than I had at first expected. I think you are saying that if you personally were to read the bible and interpret its meaning with no other source or knowledge of God, such as a church affiliation or reference to dogmas and doctrines, then you might come up with a god who is less than perfect. A literal view of the Bible might very well give this impression to some. This is why I am consistantly telling those who believe otherwise, that the Bible is not the answer in itself. Countless variations and interpretations exist, some of them completely contradictory. This is why the ancient church fathers went to great lengths to define the concepts within the Bible through reason, as accurately as human mind can so do. What they came up with may be disdained as doctrine and termed 'unbiblical', but it is absolutely important. A big one of these is the concept of free-will. Most of what you have given as examples can be summed up in that one word. You may be willing to ask yourself where you stand on that one.

Social pressures within churches, huh? Maybe. But in my observance, no social pressure has ever caused someone to reject their own scanty Biblical 'evidence' and amateur theology, or stopped them from creating/promoting heresy, schism, cults, sects, denominations, and variations within denominations. The preachers mentioned here in this thread are evidence enough of that! The general view within Christianity of an omnipotent God is not based on what the Bible merely suggests, but the absolute utmost of human effort to reflect what the Bible actually means. It is significant that the one undisputed belief amoung christians, and the unanimous findings of Judaeism, Islam, and christianity, is a Biblical God who is omnipotent. I certainly have not felt any pressure to believe that God is less-than-divine, nor can I imagine that the idea could be attractive to many. If it were, I am sure it would have sprung up somewhere along the line I think this is backward. Theology spreads and develops within churches regardless. It is the theology which affects the church, or effects the seperation from it. You could almost say that theology came into being just to deal with people who were exerting upon the church their own pressure to follow a foreign doctrine.But which came first? Are churches affecting the theology, or is the theology held by a people, the church?

For your added thought pleasure, as well as attssyf's, I will refer you to Genesis 3. Here you will find an answer to what you think you know about christian mind-bending. Or at least, it will help you discover who threw the rock. The answer is; we did. Through free-will we let sin come into the world. Here is what Genesis says; The paradise was no more. Of course you may regard this in any fashion that suits you, but at least you know there is an answer out there.

There have been plenty of sects that believed and still believe Jesus was less than divine, or not divine at all, including Nestorianism and Jehova's Witnesses. There are none that I know of who think of the Abrahamic God as semi-potent.

Can a Southern Baptist really embrace the Gospel of Inclusion? At least in the way Pearson defines it? Baptists believe that baptism is the turning point at which man begins to be 'saved'. Billy Graham himself is a believer in infant baptism, a practice which in the Catholic church stems from the concept that men are born with the original sin of Adam. Since he is not Catholic, I am not sure what his reasons for baptizing his children in infancy are. In any case, baptizing someone into communion with Jesus is an action which shows we do not believe we are already saved. Can anyone help to define these sometimes overlapping terms?Does this gospel of inclusion effect Luther's 'Justification by faith alone' doctrine? Does it imply justification by nothing, on our part?